News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla wins another award critics will absolutely despise
Tesla earned an overall score of 49 percent, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, widening its lead over second-place Ford (45 percent, up 2 points) to a commanding 4-percentage-point gap. The company also excelled in the Fossil Free & Environment category with a 50 percent score, reflecting strong progress in reducing emissions and decarbonizing operations.
Tesla just won another award that critics will absolutely despise, as it has been recognized once again as the company with the most sustainable supply chain.
Tesla has once again proven its critics wrong, securing the number one spot on the 2026 Lead the Charge Auto Supply Chain Leaderboard for the second consecutive year, Lead the Charge rankings show.
NEWS: Tesla ranked 1st on supply chain sustainability in the 2026 Lead the Charge auto/EV supply chain scorecard.
“@Tesla remains the top performing automaker of the Leaderboard for the second year running, and increased its overall score by 6 percentage points, while Ford only… pic.twitter.com/nAgGOIrGFS
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) March 4, 2026
This independent ranking, produced by a coalition of environmental, human rights, and investor groups including the Sierra Club, Transport & Environment, and others, evaluates 18 major automakers on their efforts to build equitable, sustainable, and fossil-free supply chains for electric vehicles.
Tesla earned an overall score of 49 percent, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, widening its lead over second-place Ford (45 percent, up 2 points) to a commanding 4-percentage-point gap. The company also excelled in the Fossil Free & Environment category with a 50 percent score, reflecting strong progress in reducing emissions and decarbonizing operations.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement came in the batteries subsection, where Tesla posted a massive +20-point jump to reach 51 percent, becoming the first automaker ever to surpass 50 percent in this critical area.
Tesla achieved this milestone through transparency, fully disclosing Scope 3 emissions breakdowns for battery cell production and key materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite.
The company also requires suppliers to conduct due diligence aligned with OECD guidelines on responsible sourcing, which it has mentioned in past Impact Reports.
While Tesla leads comfortably in climate and environmental performance, it scores 48 percent in human rights and responsible sourcing, slightly behind Ford’s 49 percent.
The company made notable gains in workers’ rights remedies, but has room to improve on issues like Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
Overall, the leaderboard highlights that a core group of leaders, Tesla, Ford, Volvo, Mercedes, and Volkswagen, are advancing twice as fast as their peers, proving that cleaner, more ethical EV supply chains are not just possible but already underway.
For Tesla detractors who claim EVs aren’t truly green or that the company cuts corners, this recognition from sustainability-focused NGOs delivers a powerful rebuttal.
Tesla’s vertical integration, direct supplier contracts, low-carbon material agreements (like its North American aluminum deal with emissions under 2kg CO₂e per kg), and raw materials reporting continue to set the industry standard.
As the world races toward electrification, Tesla isn’t just building cars; it’s building a more responsible future.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving likely to expand to yet another Asian country
“We are aiming for implementation in 2026. [We are] doing everything in our power [to achieve this],” Richi Hashimoto, president of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, said.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is likely to expand to yet another Asian country, as one country seems primed for the suite to head to it for the first time.
The launch of Full Self-Driving in yet another country this year would be a major breakthrough for Tesla as it continues to expand the driver-assistance program across the world. Bureaucratic red tape has held up a lot of its efforts, but things are looking up in some regions.
Tesla is poised to transform Japan’s roads with Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology by 2026.
Richi Hashimoto, president of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, announced the ambitious timeline, building on successful employee test drives that began in 2025 and earned positive media reviews. Test drives, initially limited to the Model 3 since August 2025, expanded to the Model Y on March 5.
Once regulators approve, Over-the-Air (OTA) software updates could activate FSD across roughly 40,000 Teslas already on Japanese roads. Japan’s orderly traffic and strict safety culture make it an ideal testing ground for autonomous driving.
Hashimoto said:
“We are aiming for implementation in 2026. [We are] doing everything in our power [to achieve this].”
The push aligns with Hashimoto’s leadership, which has been credited for Tesla’s sales turnaround.
In 2025, Tesla delivered a record 10,600 vehicles in Japan — a nearly 90% jump from the prior year and the first time exceeding 10,000 units annually.
BREAKING 🇯🇵 FSD IS LIKELY LAUNCHING IN JAPAN IN 2026 🚨
Richi Hashimoto, President of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, stated: “We are aiming for implementation in 2026” and added that they are “doing everything in our power” to achieve this 🔥
Test drives in Japan began in August… pic.twitter.com/jkkrJLszXN
— Ming (@tslaming) March 5, 2026
The strategy shifted from online-only sales to adding 29 physical showrooms in high-traffic malls, plus staff training and attractive financing offers launched in January 2026. Tesla also plans to expand its Supercharger network to over 1,000 points by 2027, boosting accessibility.
This Japanese momentum reflects Tesla’s broader international expansion. In Europe, Giga Berlin produced more than 200,000 vehicles in 2025 despite a temporary halt, supplying over 30 markets with plans for sequential production growth in 2026 and battery cell manufacturing by 2027.
While regional EV sales faced headwinds, the factory remains a cornerstone for Model Y deliveries across the continent.
In Asia, Giga Shanghai continues to be recognized as Tesla’s powerhouse. China, the company’s largest market, saw January 2026 deliveries from the plant rise 9 percent year-over-year to 69,129 units, with affordable new models expected later this year.
FSD advancements, already progressing in the U.S. and South Korea, are slated for Europe and further Asian rollout, complementing plans to expand Cybercab and Optimus to new markets as well.
With OTA-enabled autonomy on the horizon and retail strategies paying dividends, Tesla is strengthening its footprint from Tokyo showrooms to Berlin assembly lines and Shanghai exports. As Hashimoto continues to push Tesla forward in Japan, the company’s global vision for sustainable, self-driving mobility gains traction across Europe and Asia.
News
Tesla ships out update that brings massive change to two big features
“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”
Tesla has shipped out an update for its vehicles that was caused specifically by a California lawsuit that threatened the company’s ability to sell cars because of how it named its driver assistance suite.
Tesla shipped out Software Update 2026.2.9 starting last week; we received it already, and it only brings a few minor changes, mostly related to how things are referenced.
“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”
The following changes came to Tesla vehicles in the update:
- Navigate on Autopilot has now been renamed to Navigate on Autosteer
- FSD Computer has been renamed to AI Computer
Tesla faced a 30-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles stated the company had to come into compliance regarding the marketing of its automated driving features.
The agency confirmed on February 18 that it had taken a “corrective action” to resolve the issue. That corrective action was renaming certain parts of its ADAS.
Tesla discontinued its standalone Autopilot offering in January and ramped up the marketing of Full Self-Driving Supervised. Tesla had said on X that the issue with naming “was a ‘consumer protection’ order about the use of the term ‘Autopilot’ in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.”
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
It is now compliant with the wishes of the California DMV, and we’re all dealing with it now.
This was the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” names. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was one of those federal-level employees who had an issue with the names “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.”
Tesla sued the California DMV over the ruling last week.
Tesla wins another award critics will absolutely despise
Tesla Full Self-Driving likely to expand to yet another Asian country
